JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the ld. Member, MACT, Tinsukia in MAC Case No. 71/2017 awarding compensation amounting to Rs.24,40,844/-in favour of the claimants/respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 24.06.2017 at about 2 p.m. while the husband of claimant No. 1 was proceeding towards his house along with one Robin Patra by his bicycle and when they reached in front of Sukhan Pukhuri Raiway Gate, subsequently, a vehicle bearing registration No. AS-03-C-5394 coming from Tinsukia side towards Mukum, in a very rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and knocked down the husband of the claimant No. 1 from his back side as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his person and on the way to hospital, he succumbed to his injuries and the other person also died on the spot.

4. In connection with the accident, one case was registered vide Tinsukia P.S. case No. 772/2017 under Sections 279/304(A)/427 IPC. At the relevant time of accident, the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

5. The claimant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased filed a claim case before the Member, MACT, Tinsukia, claiming compensation for death of her husband and after completion of trial, the ld. Member, MACT, Tinsukia awarded compensation in favour of the claimant as aforesaid.

6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the ld. Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 32 years and adopted the multiplier “17” instead of 16 as per judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma –vs-DTC. The adoption of multiplier “17” for calculating loss of dependency is not sustainable on the facts and law and as such, the judgment and award dated 24.03.2021 is liable to be set aside.

8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that prevailing norms of awarding compensation under conventional heads of compensation of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate taken together is Rs.70,000/-as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. –vs-Pranay Sethi & Others. But the ld. Member, MACT has awarded an amount of Rs.1,65,000/-under the conventional head which is liable to be set aside and modified.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the ld. Member, MACT came to a finding that the income of the deceased was Rs.12,589/-per month without the occupation and the income of the deceased being established or proved. It is also submitted that the ld. Member, MACT awarded 30% as future prospect without consideration of the facts that as per the settled law regarding future prospect in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. –vs-Pranay Sethi & Others, further prospect was awarded only on the established income. In this case, the occupation and the income of the deceased was not at all proved. So awarding of 30% as future prospect is not legally sustainable.

10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a following case law-2020(2) GLT 161(Kamla Bibi–vs-Abdul Sk.(MD) & Others.

11. Notice was served to the respondents/claimants but none has appeared at the time of hearing of appeal. Hence, the appeal is disposed of without hearing the other side, on the basis of the evidence on record and the documents available thereon.

12. According to the claimant(CW1), her husband was a barber and he was the owner of a saloon namely “Tahkur Saloon” situated at Sukahpukhuri Birbal Line and he was earning Rs.15,000/-per month. In support of the income of her husband, CW1 has exhibited two documents vide Exhibit Nos. 11 and 12. The Ext. 11 was